Close window  |  View original article

Friends Don't Let Friends Shag Feminists

False accusations of rape are destroying more innocent men's lives.

By Lee Tydings  |  August 31, 2011

The Yellow Pages in every city has a section offering "Escort Services."  A phone call will put you in touch with an attractive lady or gentleman who'll be your companion for the evening.

These services aren't selling sex, oh, my, no!  Management would be shocked, shocked! to find their employees violating the well-documented terms of service and accepting extra money for sex.  That would be prostitution.

If escorting leads to sex without additional money changing hands, well, consensual sex is a crime only if you pay for it, as Governor Spitzer was reminded to his sorrow.

Prostitution, that is, offering money to get sex, is a crime, but a minor one.  Rape, that is, initiating force to get sex, is a felony.  There was no suggestion that Gov. Spitzer committed rape when he purchased sexual services - he duly paid for what was offered voluntarily, a quite different crime.

What about French elitist and international bigshot Dominique Strauss-Kahn, aka DSK?

Including lie about what happened to it.

Sex is OK, but Rape is Not OK

On May 14, DSK was about to check out of New York's posh $3,000 per night Sofitel when he had a sexual encounter with Nafissatou Diallo, a chambermaid.

Shortly thereafter, she showed police semen on her clothing and claimed rape.  Knowing that DSK could not be brought back if he fled to France, the police pulled him off an Air France flight and took him to jail.

There was conclusive evidence of a sexual encounter, but nobody said there hadn't been sex; the disagreement was the nature of the encounter.  He said she consented, she claimed rape.  The case boiled down to "He said, she said" as so many do.

It's so common for women to entice men into compromising positions and threaten rape charges that the term "badger game" was invented back in the mid 1800's to describe such schemes.  DSK's reputation as a womanizer was so well established that his denial of rape wasn't particularly credible.  His only defense against serious jail time would be to attack his accuser's credibility.

That's pretty much the man's only defense in "He said, she said" cases.  In Maryland, a woman can withdraw consent after penetration; sex becomes rape if he doesn't stop the moment she says "Stop."

Failing a video, there's no evidence of what she said or when she said it; it's her word against his; she's free to call it rape at any time after the fact.  That makes attacking her credibility crucial to his defense.

Nuts & Sluts

One way to attack a woman's credibility is to show that she's made fantastic false claims before; this suggests that she's a nut.  Another approach is to show that she's willingly had sex with lots of men and therefore probably consented this time too.  "Nuts & sluts" is the only defense available.

Given the unpleasantness of such treatment in court, feminists have lobbied for "rape shield" laws which make it hard to cross-examine a woman about her sexual history.  Even relentlessly pro-feminist NPR reports on the resulting anti-male bias in the legal system:

Male victims of rape hoaxes such as the three Duke University students accused of raping stripper Crystal Gail Mangum in 2006 are unlikely to be featured in sympathetic TV movies of the week.

In a much-publicized 1998 case in New York, Columbia University graduate student Oliver Jovanovic was found guilty of assaulting and sexually abusing Barnard College student Jamie Rzucek in an encounter that he claimed involved consensual bondage. Email messages from Rzucek to Jovanovic in which she professed interest in sadomasochism and discussed engaging in such activities with another man were ruled inadmissible by the trial judge. The conviction was eventually overturned on appeal on the grounds that Jovanovic was not allowed to present an adequate defense — but not until he had spent 20 months in prison and suffered an assault from another inmate. (Rzucek was denounced as a habitual liar by some members of her own family.) Feminists deplored the reversal of the case as a blow to victims.

No one knows how many men spend time in prison after being falsely accused of rape and either convicted or held without bail. In 1985, a Maryland woman named Kathryn Tucci was sentenced to a $150 fine and 1,000 hours of community service for a false rape charge that put her former boyfriend, Mark Bowles, behind bars for over a year on a charge that she later told the Washington Post stemmed from unrelated "traumatic events." In 1996, Los Angeles police officer Harris Scott Mintz spent five months in jail after being accused of rape by two different women: first a resident of the neighborhood he patrolled, then his own wife. Eventually, Mrs. Mintz admitted that she'd made up the story because she was angry at her husband over the first charge. Then the original case fell apart after Mintz's attorneys discovered that the woman had told an ex-roommate she had concocted the charge to sue the county and that she had tried a similar hoax before.  [emphasis added]

DSK's accuser came to America, the Land of Opportunity, and she has a rich man's semen on her clothes.  Why not make a grab at the big brass ring?  The Wall Street Journal quoted the Manhattan DA's office, "despite entreaties to be truthful, she has not been truthful, on matters great and small,..."

The Importance of Cross-Examination

The right to cross-examine all accusers, attack credibility, and demonstrate bias is fundamental to ensuring that justice is done.  That's why our Constitution proclaims that no one may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, specifically including the right to confront and cross-examine accusers.

Outside an actual criminal court, though, you're on your own.  Despite undeniable evidence that false rape accusations arise from a variety of motives, the Obama administration is forcing colleges to change their procedures for investigating on-campus rape and sex abuse charges.  The Wall Street Journal reports:

On April 4, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, head of the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), distributed a 19-page "Dear Colleague" letter to "provide recipients with information to assist them in meeting their obligations."

All colleges depend on federal money.  Colleges have huge, expensive bureaucracies to make sure that the college does everything the feds require to keep the money flowing.  Any letter addressing a college's "obligations" gets close attention.

OCR's new interpretation of Title IX "strongly discourages" universities from permitting the accused "to question or cross-examine the accuser" during the hearing. In addition, if universities provide an appeals process, it must be available to both parties—which subjects the accused to double jeopardy.

Collegiate rape victims can always call the police, but if the police decide there's insufficient evidence to press charges, the woman can turn to the college for action against a fellow student.

Colleges can't imprison students, but they can boot them out, cancel transcripts, and ruin lives and careers.  Thus, though the stakes aren't quite as high as in criminal court, they are nevertheless very real.

Why, then, is our federal government forcing colleges to make their proceedings as biased and as unjust as possible?  Not only can't the accused rapist confront his accuser, she can keep trying: If the college decides rape didn't happen, the accuser can appeal and repeat the process until she gets the verdict she wants.  That's why "double jeopardy" is forbidden by the US Constitution.

What's more, the government is relaxing the standard of proof.

Most egregiously, OCR requires universities to render judgment using "a preponderance of the evidence" standard.

"Preponderance of the evidence" is a far lower standard than "beyond reasonable doubt" which should be used in important cases.  A man can be administratively convicted of rape and thrown out of college if the college believes it's more likely he did it than that he didn't.

If he can't cross-examine his accuser or show that she might be mad at him for some other reason, there's no way to be sure anything happened at all.  NPR quoted a Perdue professor who found that 40% of rape accusations over a ten-year period in an Indiana town were false and noted:

Some years ago, a Washington Post investigation in Virginia and Maryland found that nearly one in four rape reports in 1990-91 were rejected as unfounded, and many of the women in those cases admitted they had lied when the newspaper contacted them.  [emphasis added]

In the alcohol-fueled world of casual on-campus sex, the incidence of false charges would probably be higher.

This is old news in a way.  Nearly 30 years ago, a men's magazine reported that false sexual abuse charges were common during divorce cases:

"Almost always, you find kids who are three or four years old.  The two year olds are no good because they can't speak well enough and are totally unreliable in what they do say.  The five- and six-year-olds are already old enough to say `He didn't do that, lady, and nothing you say is going to convince me.'

But threes and fours are perfect.  After they've been worked over by a parent or zealous validator, they can be counted on because they believe it and will testify accordingly."

         "Presumed Guilty," Playboy, June 1992 p 74

Now the Good News

As more and more men figure out that getting sexually involved with women can lead to big trouble, we may see a reversion to the ancient custom of chaperonage.  It's all but forgotten that a chaperon would provide an objective account of what happened, but it's been known since the dawn of time that there's no way to settle "he said, she said" without the testimony of a 3rd party or a videotape.

The even better news is that men may learn not to mess with men-hating feminists who believe the man is always at fault and reserve the right to withdraw consent after the conclusion of the encounter, no matter how hot and horny they may appear to be.  This would be good for our entire society: the fewer children feminists have, the faster we'll breed their corrosively anti-male and anti-family sentiments out of the gene pool.

In the meantime, don't let your friends get involved with feminists - the down-side can be awesome.